I. Penchal Reddy, Nellore Dist 31 ... vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd 4 Ot
2021 Latest Caselaw 1621 AP

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

             WRIT PETITION Nos.2751 and 4223 of 2015

COMMON ORDER:

       W.P.No.2751 of 2015 is filed seeking to quash the order passed by

respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.V1/309/2010 dated 14.03.2014 in

the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein, against the

proceedings in Rc.B.3427/2002 dated 30.03.2010 issued by respondent

No.4, on various grounds.

W.P.No.4223 of 2015 is filed seeking to quash the order passed by

respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.V1/378/2010 dated 14.03.2014 in

the revision petition filed by respondent No.5/Tahsildar herein, confirming

the proceedings in Rc.B.3427/2002 dated 30.03.2010 issued by

respondent No.4, on various grounds.

2. As the subject matter and the parties involved in both these writ

petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this

common order.

3. Though several grounds were raised in these writ petitions against

the background of long history of these cases, this Court deems it not

necessary to delve on the same in depth in view of the primary contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders were

passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and in

violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. As seen from the averments made in the affidavits filed support of

these writ petitions, the petitioners claim that their fore-fathers, having

purchased the subject matter land admeasuring Acs.443.91 cents in

survey No.1 (old survey No.187) situated at Pangili Village, Rapur Tahsil,

Nellore District through registered sale deeds several decades prior to the

NJS,J W.P.Nos.2751 and 4223 of 2015

commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), continued to be

in possession of the same and the petitioners are now in exclusive

possession and enjoyment of the said property. They claim that the

Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Gudur, vide proceedings dated 02.09.1976 by

invoking the provisions under Section 2A of the Act as amended by Act 20

of 1975 declared land to an extent of about Acs.4309.04 cents, including

the petitioners' lands admeasuring Acs.443.91 cents situated at Pangili

Village, Rapur Tahsil, Nellore District, as "Forest poramboke" without

verification of the relevant records and providing opportunity to the

petitioners. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the Special Deputy Tahsildar

(Inams), by exercising powers under the Act, after enquiry, granted

ryotwari pattas in favour of the petitioners on 11.05.1982. They further

claim that despite reminders and requests made by them for recording

their names in the revenue records, the concerned authorities have not

taken up any steps to incorporate the names of the petitioners in the

revenue records and as such, they were constrained to file W.P.No.23718

of 2002 and that the said writ petition was disposed of by the erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 27.11.2002 with a

direction respondent No.3/District Collector to take necessary steps in the

matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

the said order. They also claim that as the said orders were not

implemented, the petitioners were constrained to file C.C.No.410 of 2010

and on filing the same, respondent No.4/Revenue Divisional Officer

passed orders dated 30.03.2010 declaring that the ryotwari pattas granted

to the petitioners in 1982 were invalid and a direction was issued to

respondent No.5/Tahsildar to file a revision petition under Section 14-A of

the Act as amended by Act 20 of 1975. Pursuant to the said direction,

respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before respondent No.2, vide

NJS,J W.P.Nos.2751 and 4223 of 2015

R.P.No.378 of 2010. Further, aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4

directing cancellation of the pattas, the petitioners preferred a revision

petition before respondent No.2 vide R.P.No.309 of 2010. Both the said

revision petitions were clubbed together and a common order dated

14.03.2014 was passed by respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same,

these two writ petitions came to be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the

impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioners in an effective manner, inasmuch as the same was

passed without hearing the respective counsel for the parties in the

revision petitions before respondent No.2. Learned counsel states that

though the impugned order is liable to be set aside even on the basis of

various grounds raised in these writ petitions, he states that instead of

examining the merits of the same, this Court may consider remanding the

matter to respondent No.2, more particularly, in the light of the memo

dated 24.03.2014 filed on behalf of the petitioners before respondent

No.2 setting out the circumstances under which the counsel representing

the petitioners in the revision petition filed by them could not appear

before respondent No.2 on the date of hearing. He even points out that

though some of the revision petitioners died during the pendency of the

proceedings before respondent No.2, and the petitions to bring their legal

representatives on record have been filed, the same were not looked into

nor orders were passed thereon. He states that had the counsel

representing the petitioners in the revision petition filed by them before

respondent No.2 was afforded an opportunity, the same would have been

brought to the notice of the revisional authority. He submits that virtually

the impugned order has no validity, inasmuch as the same was passed

against dead persons also. Be that as it may, the learned counsel states

NJS,J W.P.Nos.2751 and 4223 of 2015

that the matter may be remanded to respondent No.2, so that the claim

of the petitioners in respect of their valuable properties would be decided

after hearing the respective counsel for the parties in the revision

petitions.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order impugned in

these writ petitions was passed by respondent No.2, after affording

adequate opportunity to the petitioners and examining the material

available on record. Therefore, the same cannot be found fault with.

He further submits that the petitioners, having failed to avail the

opportunity afforded to them, have not made out any case for

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, to quash the impugned order passed by the

revisional authority under the provisions of the Act.

7. The contentions of learned counsel for both sides are considered.

A perusal of the impugned order itself shows, and as rightly stated by

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

respondents, that respondent No.2, no doubt, granted sufficient

opportunity to the petitioners. However, the said order was admittedly

passed without hearing the respective counsel for the parties in the

revision petitions. The reason for not representing the petitioners by their

counsel on the date of hearing of their revision petition was clearly set out

in the memo dated 24.03.2014 filed on behalf of the petitioners before

respondent No.2. A perusal of the said memo would disclose that the

person, who was representing the petitioners in the revision petition filed

by them, was not aware of the procedure regarding call work etc.,.

though he was present in the Court during the call work. The said memo

also refers to the other aspects with regard to the enquiries stated to have

NJS,J W.P.Nos.2751 and 4223 of 2015

been made by the petitioners' representative and the information given to

him to the effect that the date of the next posting would be

communicated to the parties or the counsel. The contents of the said

memo are not disputed by the respondents.

8. Be that as it may, apart from the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the impugned order was passed without hearing

the counsel representing the petitioners in the revision petition filed by

them, what appeals to this Court is that during the pendency of the

proceedings before respondent No.2, some of the revision petitioners died

and though appropriate petitions seeking to bring the legal

representatives were filed on 02.04.2013, the same have not been

ordered and the impugned order was passed subsequently on 14.03.2014.

Thus, the impugned order passed against the dead persons also is not

valid in the eye of law and is a nullity. Under the said circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside

and the matter needs to be remanded to respondent No.2 for passing

orders afresh.

9. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 14.03.2014 is set aside.

Respondent No.2 is directed to pass orders afresh duly considering the

material on record and by affording an opportunity of hearing to all the

parties concerned in the revision petitions within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall also

cooperate for expeditious disposal of the revision petitions.

10. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed.

After delivery of the judgment, it is stated by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that an order of status quo passed during the pendency

of these writ petitions exists as of now. In view of the same, the said

NJS,J W.P.Nos.2751 and 4223 of 2015

order shall remain in force till disposal of the revision petitions, afresh, by

respondent No.2 as directed above. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ

petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 20th March, 2021 Note: Issue C.C. in one week.

(B/o) GHN